Defendant Hides Address to Dodge Court: Supreme People’s Court Clarifies How to Handle Key Civil Procedure Issues

20-06-26 MTParners

Official Letter No. 250/TANDTC-PC just issued guidance resolving a string of contentious courtroom situations — from defendants who “disappear,” to filing inheritance lawsuits before the estate is confirmed, and counterclaims for overpaid amounts.

On May 9, 2026, Vietnam’s Supreme People’s Court published the full text of Official Letter No. 250/TANDTC-PC, consolidating 38 answers to difficulties arising in adjudication, of which 14 relate directly to civil matters, civil procedure, and commercial disputes. The document resolves several common procedural issues that individuals and businesses face when bringing a case to court: a defendant deliberately hiding their address, filing an inheritance claim before the estate is confirmed, and whether a defendant’s request to be repaid an overpayment counts as a counterclaim.

When the Defendant “Disappears,” the Court Must Still Proceed

One of the most common issues at regional people’s courts is defendants changing their residence, failing to declare a new address, or deliberately evading service so that a case drags on — sometimes even being suspended for “failure to determine the defendant’s address.” In Official Letter 250/TANDTC-PC, the Judicial Council clearly affirmed that if there is evidence the defendant is deliberately concealing their address to evade procedural obligations,

“in this case, the Court must determine that the defendant has deliberately concealed their address, and resolve the case under the ordinary procedure.”

Courts apply the guidance in Resolution 04/2017/NQ-HĐTP to continue accepting and adjudicating the case under ordinary procedure, rather than letting it stall indefinitely simply because the plaintiff cannot provide the defendant’s exact address.

Filing an Inheritance Claim Before the Estate Is Confirmed: Courts May Not Reject the Petition

Another frequent issue arises in inheritance disputes: at the time of filing, the claimant lacks sufficient documentation proving the deceased actually left an estate. Many courts previously tended to return such petitions on the grounds of “insufficient conditions to sue” under Article 192 of the Civil Procedure Code. Official Letter 250 clarifies that this interpretation is incorrect:

“if, at the time of filing, the claimant cannot provide documents or evidence proving the deceased left an estate, this does not fall under the case of ‘insufficient conditions to sue’… therefore the Court must still accept the case for resolution.”

Whether or not an estate exists, and what it consists of, is a matter to be clarified during the course of resolving the case — not a precondition that must already be established before the court accepts it.

Defendant’s Request for Repayment of an Overpayment Must Be Treated as a Counterclaim

In disputes over loan or sale contracts, defendants often claim they overpaid the plaintiff and request the difference be returned. According to Official Letter 250, this must be treated as a counterclaim under Article 200 of the Civil Procedure Code, triggering the corresponding procedural rights and obligations (such as the burden of proof and court fees on the counterclaim), rather than being treated merely as a statement made during argument.

The Letter also addresses several other specific scenarios: disputes over loan contracts where the object is gold (the court orders repayment in gold, converting it to cash only to calculate court fees at the market rate at the time of first-instance trial); and the scope of appellate review when a contract is declared void — the appellate court may amend the judgment rather than annul it if sufficient additional evidence was supplemented at the appellate stage.

Practical Impact

These clarifications directly affect thousands of civil disputes currently or soon to be resolved at regional and provincial people’s courts. A unified interpretation should reduce cases being returned, suspended, or unnecessarily prolonged due to procedural confusion — particularly as the court system operates under its new two-tier structure. The guidance also gives parties to a dispute a clearer basis for anticipating procedural risk and being more proactive in gathering evidence and deciding litigation or counterclaim strategy.

Recommendations

When preparing an inheritance lawsuit, proactively gather evidence about the estate from the outset, but there is no need for excessive concern if it is incomplete — the court is still responsible for accepting the case and clarifying matters during proceedings.
If you are a defendant with a claim that conflicts with the plaintiff’s request (for example, having overpaid), file a counterclaim within the deadline and in the proper form so the court will consider it as an independent claim.
When the defendant’s address cannot be determined, plaintiffs should gather and submit to the court evidence showing the defendant is deliberately evading service, to avoid the case being prolonged or suspended.
Businesses and individuals involved in civil litigation should consult a lawyer before filing a claim or counterclaim, to ensure the correct legal grounds are used and to avoid losing rights due to procedural errors.

MT & Partners Law Firm, with a team of experienced civil litigation lawyers, stands ready to advise, represent, and protect clients’ lawful rights in civil disputes before the courts. Contact hotline 0987140772 or email info@mtpartners.vn for consultation.

(*) This article is for reference only and does not replace specific legal advice.

SEO Keywords: civil dispute, civil procedure, Official Letter 250/TANDTC-PC, defendant hiding address, inheritance lawsuit, counterclaim, Civil Procedure Code, regional people’s court, civil litigation lawyer, MT & Partners.